Oral History and Fragments in Southeast Asia
Oral History and Fragments in Southeast Asia
复制标题
东南亚口述历史及片段
DOI：
10.1057/9781137311672_1
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
A. Thomson
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
K. S. Loh;E. Koh;A. Thomson
这本书提供了一个从东南亚的观点，在那里口述历史是胚胎和国家领导，但也正在社会上的争议和重新定义。这本书开始于2010年在新加坡举行的一次会议，由东南亚研究所（ISEAS）和新加坡遗产协会组织。ISEAS在20年前举办了一次类似的活动，结果出版了《东南亚口述历史：理论与方法》（1998年）。[1]在这中间的几年里，东南亚发生了重大变化，改变了口述历史的实践。这本书将沿着沿着两条交叉的调查路线调查东南亚的口述历史。首先，它探讨了如何，在世界其他地方，跨学科的方法是连接口述历史的记忆，口述传统和遗产的研究。其次，该书注重语境，探讨了口述历史与叙述者所处的政治、经济和社会环境之间的关系。在将这两种方法结合在一起时，本卷将口述历史视为“碎片”--那些不符合主流或主导叙事的个人或群体对过去的叙述。这个词起源于底层/后殖民研究，指的是与主流观点相冲突的边缘群体的观点。在这里，它被更广泛地用于包括口述历史和主流叙事之间的不同类型的关系
This book offers a view from Southeast Asia, where oral history is embryonic and state led but is also being socially contested and redefined. The book began as a conference in Singapore in 2010, organized by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies (ISEAS) and the Singapore Heritage Society. ISEAS had hosted a similar event 20 years ago, which resulted in the publication Oral History in Southeast Asia: Theory and Method (1998). 1 The interim years have witnessed significant changes in Southeast Asia that are transforming the practice of oral history. The book will investigate oral history in Southeast Asia along two intersecting lines of inquiry. First, it explores how, as elsewhere in the world, interdisciplinary approaches are connecting oral history to studies of memory, oral tradition, and heritage. Second, the book pays attention to context and explores the relationship between oral history and the political, economic, and social circumstances in which the narrator speaks. In bringing together these two approaches, this volume considers oral history as “fragments”—those individual or group accounts of the past that do not fit in with the mainstream or dominant narrative. The term, originating from subaltern/postcolonial studies, refers to perspectives of marginal groups that conflict with the dominant view. Here, it is used more broadly to include different sorts of relationships between oral history and dominant narratives